In yesterday’s Telegraph, John Rhodes suggests that the Coalition’s planning agenda is supposed to promote more development and not give communities the power to block new homes, infrastructure or employment sites. It’s no secret that the economy needs more homes to be built so that sounds like a good thing. The problem is that it is not just a matter of how the Localism Bill and NPPF were intended to work; it is also a matter of how they are interpreted locally.
In many Conservative-controlled rural councils, even before the Coalition was in power, there was a view that all talk of development, RSS numbers and planning applications should stop until they were given the ultimate authority to decide by the Localism Bill. In some areas (particularly cities and new towns), the decision was to continue to promote more house-building and development; but in many it was assumed that Localism meant no more housing could be “forced” on their local communities.
Whilst the limitations of this view are now visibly settling and councils do appear to be taking more of a pragmatic approach, the rhetoric of Localism – local decisions made by local people; neighbourhood planning; local choice in development – has taken hold and councillors and residents’ groups are already using it to support their arguments.
If the Government really wants to increase the amount of development across the country and it wants local people to support it then it is first going to have to find a way of communicating the genuine need and tangible benefits which it brings; in the rural areas and the south-east as well as the cities.
Catherine Worboys, Managing Director, Curtin&Co
No comments:
Post a Comment